Fruits and vegetables are less nutritious than they used to be - Mounting evidence shows that many of today’s whole foods aren't as packed with vitamins and nutrients as they were 70 years ago, potentially putting people's health at risk.


Vegetables like this freshly picked carrot lying on a garden bed of frisée endive are critical sources of nutrients. Mounting evidence shows that many fruits, vegetables, and grains grown today carry fewer nutrients than those grown decades ago. This trend means that “what our grandparents ate was healthier than what we’re eating today,” says Kristie Ebi, an expert in climate change and health at the University of Washington in Seattle. But studies have shown that changing farming methods can reverse these nutrient declines. Produce cultivated on farms that embrace regenerative farming practices is more nutritious.

As you gaze across the rows of brightly colored fruits and vegetables in the produce section of the grocery store, you may not be aware that the quantity of nutrients in these crops has been declining over the past 70 years.

Mounting evidence from multiple scientific studies shows that many fruits, vegetables, and grains grown today carry less protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, riboflavin, and vitamin C than those that were grown decades ago. This is an especially salient issue if more people switch to primarily plant-based diets, as experts are increasingly recommending for public health and for protecting the planet.

Nutrient decline “is going to leave our bodies with fewer of the components they need to mount defenses against chronic diseases—it’s going to undercut the value of food as preventive medicine,” says David R. Montgomery, a professor of geomorphology at the University of Washington in Seattle and co-author with Anne Biklé of What Your Food Ate.

Even for people who avoid processed foods and prioritize fresh produce, this trend means that “what our grandparents ate was healthier than what we’re eating today,” says Kristie Ebi, an expert in climate change and health at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Scientists say that the root of the problem lies in modern agricultural processes that increase crop yields but disturb soil health. These include irrigation, fertilization, and harvesting methods that also disrupt essential interactions between plants and soil fungi, which reduces absorption of nutrients from the soil. These issues are occurring against the backdrop of climate change and rising levels of carbon dioxide, which are also lowering the nutrient contents of fruits, vegetables, and grains.

Experts say it’s important to keep these declines in perspective and not let this news deter you from eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to maintain your health. But they hope the results will spur more people to care about how their food is being grown.

“Most people know that what we eat matters—if how our food is raised also matters, it opens a new, compelling reason for the average person to care about agricultural practices,” says Montgomery. “We can’t afford to lose arable land as population grows. We need to prevent further damage and work to restore fertility to already degraded lands.”

The point of diminishing returns

One of the largest scientific studies to draw attention to this issue was published in the December 2004 issue of the Journal of the American College of Nutrition. Using USDA nutrient data published in 1950 and 1999, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin noted changes in 13 nutrients in 43 different garden crops—from asparagus and snap beans to strawberries and watermelon.

These raw fruits and veggies showed declines in protein, calcium, and phosphorus, which are essential for building and maintaining strong bones and teeth and for proper nerve function. There were also dips in iron, vital for carrying oxygen throughout the body, and in riboflavin, which is crucial for metabolism of fats and drugs. Levels of vitamin C—important for the growth and repair of various tissues in the body and for immune function—also fell.

The level of decline varied depending on the specific nutrients and the type of fruit or vegetable, but it generally ranged from 6 percent for protein to 38 percent for riboflavin. In particular, calcium dropped most dramatically in broccoli, kale, and mustard greens, while the iron content took a substantial hit in chard, cucumbers, and turnip greens. Asparagus, collards, mustard greens, and turnip greens lost considerable amounts of vitamin C.

Further studies since then have backed up the case that nutrient levels are dissipating. Research in the January 2022 issue of the journal Foods found that while most vegetables grown in Australia had relatively similar iron content between 1980 and 2010, there were noteworthy drops in certain veggies. Declines in iron content, ranging from 30 to 50 percent, occurred for sweet corn, red-skinned potatoes, cauliflower, green beans, green peas, and chickpeas. By contrast, Hass avocadoes, mushrooms, and silverbeet (another name for chard) actually gained in iron.

Grains have also experienced declines, experts say. A study in a 2020 issue of Scientific Reports found that protein content in wheat decreased by 23 percent from 1955 to 2016, and there were notable reductions in manganese, iron, zinc, and magnesium, as well.

The alarming declines have ripple effects for meat-eaters too. Cows, pigs, goats, and lambs are now feasting on less nutritious grasses and grains, Montgomery says, which in turn makes meat and other animal-derived products less nutritious than they used to be.

A problematic perfect storm

Multiple factors are contributing to the problem. The first is modern farming practices that are designed to increase crop yields.

“By learning to grow plants bigger and faster, the plants aren’t able to keep up with absorption of the nutrients from the soil or able to synthesize nutrients internally,” explains Donald R. Davis of the University of Texas at Austin. The retired chemist and nutrition researcher was the lead author of the eye-opening 2004 study, as well as an author on subsequent papers on this subject.

Higher yield means nutrients from the soil must be distributed across a greater volume of crops, so in effect, the nutrients these fruits and veggies produce are being diluted. “Unfortunately, farmers get paid for the weight of their crops, so that incentivizes them to do things that aren’t good for the nutrient content,” Davis adds.

Another culprit is the soil damage that results from high-yield crops. Wheat, corn, rice, soybeans, potatoes, bananas, yams, and flax all benefit from partnerships with key fungi that enhance the plants’ ability to access nutrients and water from the soil. The “fungi act as root extensions for the plant,” Montgomery says. But high-yield farming depletes soil, which to some extent compromises the ability of plants to form partnerships with mycorrhizal fungi, explains Montgomery.

Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are also undercutting the nutritiousness of our foods.

All plants have photosynthetic pathways through which they bring in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, break it apart, and use the carbon to grow, explains Ebi. But when crops including wheat, rice, barley, and potatoes are exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide, they generate more carbon-based compounds, which leads to a higher carbohydrate content. In addition, when concentrations of carbon dioxide are higher, these crops draw in less water, “which means they bring in fewer micronutrients from the soil,” says Ebi.

Experiments described in a 2018 issue of Science Advances confirmed that concentrations of protein, iron, zinc, and several B vitamins decreased in 18 types of rice after exposure to higher levels of carbon dioxide.

A looming threat to public health

To be clear: Fruits, vegetables, and whole grains are still among the healthiest foods on the planet—but consumers may not be getting the nutrients they’re counting on from plant-based foods. And if these nutrient declines continue, some people may be at elevated risk for developing deficiencies in certain nutrients or less able to protect themselves from chronic diseases through good nutrition, experts say.

While these nutrient declines affect everyone, some people are more likely to suffer harm.

“Wheat and rice compose more than 30 percent of calories consumed around the world,” Ebi notes. “Anyone whose diet relies heavily on these grains, particularly low-income populations, could be affected by decreasing consumption of protein, B vitamins, and micronutrients [in these grains]. These dietary changes could lead to deficiencies, such as iron-deficiency anemia in women and girls.”

Nutrient declines are a huge concern in countries that are already struggling with severe food insecurity, adds Chase Sova, senior director of public policy and research at World Food Program USA.

“As many as three billion people around the planet, most of them in low- and middle-income countries, cannot regularly afford a healthy diet, and at least two billion are suffering from so-called hidden hunger, missing key micronutrients in their diets,” Sova says. “These people cannot afford additional nutrient declines in plant-based foods.”

No matter who’s eating them, foods with fewer nutrients also may be lacking another important attribute: flavor. A lot of the health-protective compounds also impart flavor to foods, so some of the shifts in farming practices that are responsible for lower nutrient levels are the same ones that contribute to their meh tastes (we’re talking about you, tasteless tomatoes and bland carrots).

Soil: The key to boosting nutrients

Unfortunately, the nutrient levels in produce are not likely to improve given the current trajectory of global changes.

Using models with the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations predicted by the year 2050, researchers estimate that the protein content of potatoes, rice, wheat, and barley is likely to decrease another 6 to 14 percent, according to a study published in a 2017 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives. As a result, 18 countries, including India, may lose more than 5 percent of their dietary protein.

There’s an ongoing debate about whether organic produce is more nutritious than conventionally grown produce, but it’s a moot point, according to some scientists, because of the considerable overlap in farming practices and environmental exposure to carbon dioxide.

Montgomery says the effects of farming practices on soil health are a better lens through which to view the nutrient content of crops. Most studies that compare produce from conventional farms with organically farmed food don’t control for soil health, which Montgomery says is the most important factor.

One strategy for improving soil is with regenerative farming—a sweeping set of practices that can restore soil fertility. A study in the January 2022 issue of PeerJ: Life & Environment shows that regenerative farming practices produce crops with higher soil organic matter levels, soil health scores, and higher levels of certain vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals.

The first step is to leave the soil alone as much as possible and reduce tillage, a practice that leads to mineral depletion. Planting cover crops (which are grown to cover the soil in order to protect it) such as clover, rye grass, or vetch can help by preventing erosion and suppressing weed growth. And rotating the range of plants grown in each field can improve the nutrient content of subsequent crops.

For the most part, though, the healthiest thing the average shopper can do is keep eating an array of produce. “We’re not talking about a 50 percent decline in nutrient density, so if you’re getting a variety of different-colored fruits and vegetables, you’ll still meet your nutritional needs,” says Kristi Crowe-White, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of Alabama and a member expert for the Institute of Food Technologists.

It’s very unlikely that everything you eat will be devoid of beta carotene, for example, which the body converts into vitamin A. “By eating a variety of fruits and vegetables, you will offset some of these nutrient losses” she says.

“Across the board, people should be eating more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains to optimize the effects on human health,” Montgomery adds. In this instance, variety isn’t just the spice of life—it may help you reap and harvest better health.
 
Half of Americans drink something other than water as their primary source of fluid.
I seem to recall seeing a coca cola campaign around the time of one of the olympics that was like "Anything liquid hydrates you" and I swear to god I've heard deathfats say that a bunch of times in the decade (or more) since I saw that.
It also reminds me of my southern grandmother who would tell her doctor she drank a lot of water because she counted the ice in her coke as water.

People are just fucking delusional and/or retarded.
 
I didn't see them talking about the 'water injection' part of the harvesting and processing before it gets to the store.

Seriously, the vegetables are less dense feeling, feel like they're more full of water, than the stuff I pull out of the garden.
The question this poses is are they looking at the vitamin content by weight or per veggie. I imagine it's declining both ways, but the water content swell would be a major factor if it's not compensated for.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KiwiFuzz
This is to be expected. No matter how you grow your food ("regenerative agriculture" is bullshit, fight me about it) the plants will pull nutrients out of the ground. Unless those plants die and decompose in the same place they grew, those nutrients are lost. The only way to resupply the soil is to add nutrients and fertilizers which enviro-faggots have been railing against for decades.
The one thing I'll give some of the hippies now-a-days, is they understand things like nutrients, composting, and crop rotation. But they stick to their little corners while the lunatics run rampant.
 
Here's a radical idea, what if the research shows our food is less nutritious now is because out research is more accurate than it was 50 years ago? Vitamins were only discovered like 100 years ago. Medicine used to be primarily either opium, cocaine, or alcohol. Cigarettes were once promoted by doctors saying one brand was healthier than others. They used to sell radioactive water as health tonic.

I'm no food scientist. I don't know how they measured nutritional content back when they had pencil and paper, triple-beam balance, and a slide rule to figure these things out. Now days, we have electron scanning microscopes and our computers don't fill an entire room.

Just making a counterpoint.
 
The one thing I'll give some of the hippies now-a-days, is they understand things like nutrients, composting, and crop rotation
So do even the most industrialized of farmers.
mar-finding-wallander-fig-e-.png
Those people that go around saying US agriculture is dominated by monoculture farming are lying to you.
 
This is old news. We've known since the 90s that trace mineral/micronutrient depletion is an issue worldwide. Not surprised that the combination of focusing on inefficient "organic" farming, breeding for appearance & transportability rather than nutrient content (or flavor, seriously when did tomatoes become so bland?), and our over use of tillage has made the problem worse.

Don't get sucked into the organic vs modern industrial agriculture. Both suck and neither really address all the issues around feeding 7 billion people.
 
I seem to recall seeing a coca cola campaign around the time of one of the olympics that was like "Anything liquid hydrates you" and I swear to god I've heard deathfats say that a bunch of times in the decade (or more) since I saw that.
It also reminds me of my southern grandmother who would tell her doctor she drank a lot of water because she counted the ice in her coke as water.

People are just fucking delusional and/or retarded.
Technically that's true. Coke will hydrate you. It's probably 98% water after all, and even after the diuretic effects of caffeine are taken into account, you still end up net positive. But the issue isn't hydration per se. The problem is that it's full of other shit. Sugar, acid, food coloring, caffeine. Artificial sweeteners if you drink the diet stuff. If you're drinking almost a gallon of that a day, it's going to mess with you. Even if you drink herbal tea all day instead of water, you're guzzling down way more water-soluble compounds than you were ever intended to. Flavored drinks were intended to be something you have maybe once a day, not all day every day.
 
You can tell just by the (lack of) flavor
Just needs more msg.

Also, I doubt this is a "public health" issue when many food stuffs are enriched with vitamins. Plus, you know, we have vitamin supplements. In addition, we always have hydroponics.
 
RIP Red Delicious apple, they killed your flavor over some spots on the skin.

I remember them being good when I was a kid in the 80s. But they started getting weird. Really hard and bland. Green inside.

Also, I can't find a lot of apple varieties easily.It's all brand name apples with weird names. Where's the Jonathans and Braeburns? I don't want a honeycrisp. They are way too expensive.
 
I remember them being good when I was a kid in the 80s. But they started getting weird. Really hard and bland. Green inside.

Also, I can't find a lot of apple varieties easily.It's all brand name apples with weird names. Where's the Jonathans and Braeburns? I don't want a honeycrisp. They are way too expensive.
Fuji is the apple master race.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KiwiFuzz and ltlftp
Grains have also experienced declines, experts say. A study in a 2020 issue of Scientific Reports found that protein content in wheat decreased by 23 percent from 1955 to 2016, and there were notable reductions in manganese, iron, zinc, and magnesium, as well.
Most grain buyers pay a premium for wheat that tests above 14% protein. If it's that important that bread have more protein in it, pay more. Farmers are smart, they'll figure it out.

Shockingly, those evil corn and soybean farmers know all about these mineral deficiencies. Soil and plant tissue samples looking at micro-nutrient levels became a big thing 10 years ago. Sulfur is another one that has to get mixed in with the big 3 fertilizers since we haven't had any acid rain in 40 years to replenish the soil.
Organic" is the old guard fighting tooth and nail to slow the train on CRISPR edited crops/animals, new pesticides and fertilizers, and the slew of other amazing advancements being made in the food industry.
Organic was a grift to garner support for corporate farming and feeling good about it. When I say corporate, I mean big fucking companies, not 1Tonka's Family Farm, LLC. To become a certified organic wheat producer, you have to grow 3 years of organic wheat and sell it at normal crop prices. That is not financially sustainable, let alone profitable. It takes stacks of cash to float a farm for 3 years.

Let me tell you about the family-farm-sized organic wheat farmer I know. 10 years ago, western Oklahoma was going through a brutal drought that resulted in 4 years of crop failure. After the first year, this farmer decided it was going to be years before things got back to normal. He decided if he wasn't going to grow anything, he might as well spend a few years not growing organic wheat. 5 years later, the area comes out of the drought, and everyone spends most of June getting combines stuck and pulling them out because it won't stop fucking raining. Organic farmer has a bumper crop and covers the previous 4 years of losses with the premium he got for organic wheat. Sounds like a success story, right? The only reason he was able to attempt it; he owns a fuel distribution company and everyone that works on his farm has a real job at the fuel company.

The old guard is not embracing organic farming. Most of the true old guard remember killing the bugs in mom's garden with arsenic or nicotine and want nothing to do with that shit.
 
Organic was a grift to garner support for corporate farming and feeling good about it. When I say corporate, I mean big fucking companies, not 1Tonka's Family Farm, LLC. To become a certified organic wheat producer, you have to grow 3 years of organic wheat and sell it at normal crop prices. That is not financially sustainable, let alone profitable. It takes stacks of cash to float a farm for 3 years.

Let me tell you about the family-farm-sized organic wheat farmer I know. 10 years ago, western Oklahoma was going through a brutal drought that resulted in 4 years of crop failure. After the first year, this farmer decided it was going to be years before things got back to normal. He decided if he wasn't going to grow anything, he might as well spend a few years not growing organic wheat. 5 years later, the area comes out of the drought, and everyone spends most of June getting combines stuck and pulling them out because it won't stop fucking raining. Organic farmer has a bumper crop and covers the previous 4 years of losses with the premium he got for organic wheat. Sounds like a success story, right? The only reason he was able to attempt it; he owns a fuel distribution company and everyone that works on his farm has a real job at the fuel company.

The old guard is not embracing organic farming. Most of the true old guard remember killing the bugs in mom's garden with arsenic or nicotine and want nothing to do with that shit.
Yeah, by "old guard" I meant "fuckhuge companies that have been around forever." Fomenting distrust in NBT's, (certain types of) pesticides, and other modern agricultural measures is how they justify their retardedly inflated prices despite pulling in all of that sweet government dosh.
 
I remember them being good when I was a kid in the 80s. But they started getting weird. Really hard and bland. Green inside.

Also, I can't find a lot of apple varieties easily.It's all brand name apples with weird names. Where's the Jonathans and Braeburns? I don't want a honeycrisp. They are way too expensive.
They began, through a process of selective breeding and later editing the genome, to select solely for traits that were deemed useful for increasing the "marketability" of the apple (fuck you for wanting a delicious piece of fruit out of the transaction). This included thicker, redder skin of a more pleasing and uniform hue, studier body for transport, consistently larger size, etc. All so they could treat produce the same as any other widget. Unfortunately, one of the genes that coded for a specific mottling pattern on its skin also coded for the bulk of the fructose in the damn things. Who knew? And so the end result is one of the most unpleasant apples I have ever had the displeasure to attempt eating (it only took the one to learn my lesson).

The real tragedy is that the scientist who figured this all out produced a far superior replacement. Then he caught them trying to do the same shit to that one too, with absolutely no indication they truly comprehended the consequences of their actions.
 
and have a hard line that all pesticides are bad because they're chemicals and oh noes hard science!
In fairness, there are (or were, just like with fertilizers we’ve gotten smarter) some pesticides that are extremely dangerous for the environment or to eat directly.

Pesticides have OSHA chemical sheets for a reason. Perhaps a fair compromise would be putting something near the produce saying “these were grown using X & Y, here’s their spec sheet online”.
 
Coke will hydrate you. It's probably 98% water after all
Maybe Diet Coke is. A can of regular Coke has 39 grams of sugar which puts it at around 12% sugar by weight.
I remember them being good when I was a kid in the 80s. But they started getting weird. Really hard and bland. Green inside.
I don't think red delicious changed. I think you changed. We all liked things when we were kids that we find unpalatable today. Most of the boomers I know agree that red delicious has always been ass.
 
I don't think red delicious changed. I think you changed. We all liked things when we were kids that we find unpalatable today. Most of the boomers I know agree that red delicious has always been ass.
Red Delicious are garbage. Even as a kid (90s) they were bland and unpleasant to eat.
 
In fairness, there are (or were, just like with fertilizers we’ve gotten smarter) some pesticides that are extremely dangerous for the environment or to eat directly.

Pesticides have OSHA chemical sheets for a reason. Perhaps a fair compromise would be putting something near the produce saying “these were grown using X & Y, here’s their spec sheet online”.
No disagreement on the first part.

The organic people saying that pesticides should NEVER be applied is like saying that... ooh, what's a good analogy? The cops using kettling, tear gas, rubber bullets, sound weapons, and other shit on rioters, maybe? You obviously don't want to pull that shit out for twenty MAGA chuds standing on the street corner waving Trump flags, but when the city center is getting burned down, you need effective weapons, and "fairness" to whatever is doing the damage stops being a concern.

For the second part, putting MSDS sheets in the produce section, people are dumb and saying "this was grown using Ziram" is going to freak people out unnecessarily and it's going to be counter-productive. I am a Cali fag and prop 65 (requiring labelling for the presence of carcinogenic chemicals) is the most retarded shit ever. You can't go into a store without a sticker on the front. My personal favorite is the prop 65 warning on shot shells. Yeah, they're hazardous to your health, alright.
 
Back